In the Seventh Canto of Śrīmad Bhāgavatam, there is a very interesting dialogue recited by Śrī Śukadeva Gosvāmī about the liberation of Śiśupāla who was killed by Kṛṣṇa during Yudhiṣṭhira Mahārāja’s Rājasūya-yajña. Śiśupāla was Kṛṣṇa’s cousin, but hated Kṛṣṇa since his very birth. At the first sight of Kṛṣṇa, he would start insulting Him, but Kṛṣṇa always remained tolerant, not showing any sign of disturbance. Kṛṣṇa had promised Śiśupāla’s mother, his maternal Aunt, “I will tolerate one hundred abuses from your son, but the day he crosses this limit, I will take action.”

Kings from all over the world attended Yudhiṣṭhira’s Rājasūya-yajña. It is a Vedic custom that guests should be received and honored like God, so a ceremony of honor was scheduled for all these royal guests. The question arose as to who would get the first worship. Although everybody would receive the same type of worship, the most honorable in the assembly would be worshipped first. The same principle can often seen in Indian temples during the ārati ceremony when the ghee lamp which has been offered to the Lord is rotated around to the assembled devotees. Similarly, during Kumbha Mela, the most respected mahant or ācārya enters the holy river Ganga before all others.

After a big discussion on this issue, it was finally decided that Bhagavān Śrī Kṛṣṇa should get the honor of first-worship, even though great sages like Nārada, Vyāsa, Parāśara, Vasiṣṭha, Maitreya, Viśvāmitra, Paraśurāma, Kaśyapa, great devas like Indra, and Varuṇa, and respectable elders like grandfather Bhīṣma were present. Śiśupāla objected, and started criticizing and insulting Kṛṣṇa. Kṛṣṇa tolerated it, but Śiśupāla was relentless and full of anger. Kṛṣṇa reminded him that he was nearing the limit of His promise to Śiśupāla’s mother, but Śiśupāla paid no heed. As soon as Śiśupāla crossed the mark of hundred abuses, Kṛṣṇa evoked His Sudarśana Cakra and cut off his head.

Krsna severs Sisupala's head

Then an amazing thing occurred: The ātma of Śiśupāla came out of his body and merged into the left foot of Kṛṣṇa, signifying that Śiśupāla attained freedom from bondage to the material world. Everyone including King Yudhiṣṭhira was surprised to see this.

Yudhiṣṭhira asked Nārada, “How is it that Śiśupāla, who was full of hatred towards Kṛṣṇa, attained mukti, which is so rare to achieve even by great sages?” Yudhiṣṭhira gave the example of King Veena, who was also very critical of Bhagavān Viṣṇu and was killed by the sages, but did not attain mukti. Indeed, it is widely understood that even to hear criticism of Bhagavān or His devotees is deleterious to spiritual progress. As it is said in Śrīmad Bhāgavatam:

“One who hears the criticism of Bhagavān or His devotees and does not leave that place, will fall down losing all his merit. What to speak of the person who speaks the criticism?” (SB 10.74.40)

The phrase “what to speak” (api) indicates that one who criticizes Bhagavān or His devotees will certainly meet an even worse destination than what is described.

Yudhiṣṭhira Mahārāja asked Nārada why Śiśupāla did not develop leprosy on his tongue or go to the darkest region of hell, instead of merging into the body of Kṛṣṇa. There is a popular smṛti statement, “A person meets the result of very severe sin or pious deeds in this very life.” This implies that Śiśupāla should have received the reaction to his offenses without delay.

Śiśupāla as an Example of Rāgānuga Bhakti

Śrī Nārada then gave a very elaborate answer to Yudhiṣṭhira’s questions, an answer which contains the heart of rāgānuga bhakti. He explained that criticism, praise, honor, and disrespect are only related to the physical body. When one thinks the body to be the self, one considers the praise or criticism, honor, or dishonor given to the body as if it were praise (etc.) of one’s own self, and therefore feels elated, or angry. Bhagavān does not have such a dualistic mentality, which arises from misidentification with events unfolding in prakṛti, therefore praise or criticism given by materialistic people does not affect Him.

One identifies with the physical body because of lack of discrimination between prakṛti and puruṣa. Śrī Jīva Gosvāmī says that foolish people criticize the characteristics of the body, which are products of tamas and rajas. All such criticism is actually only within the realm of prakṛti or the material guṇas, but Bhagavān’s body is beyond the guṇas of prakṛti. Therefore, any such criticism is not applicable to Him. Moreover, Bhagavān does not identify with prakṛti and its evolutes. Thus any such criticism does not bring any pain to Him. In Bhagavad Gītā, Śrī Kṛṣṇa says that He does not reveal Himself to materialistic people and remains covered by the veil of Yogamāyā (Gītā 7.25).

When Arjuna asked about the symptoms of a person who has transcended the guṇas of prakṛti, Kṛṣṇa replied,

“A person is beyond the guṇas of nature if he is equal in happiness and distress, situated in the self; regards a clod of mud, a stone and piece of gold as equal in worth; is alike towards favorable and unfavorable objects and situations; is sober and views alike censure and praise; is equal in honor and dishonor; treats a friend and foe alike; and has renounced all undertakings.” (Gītā 14.24-25)

If that is true for a jīvan-mukta, a liberated person still living in the material body, then by argumentum a fortiori, certainly such criticism as pronounced by Śiśupāla does not influence Bhagavān Śrī Kṛṣṇa.

Then why did Kṛṣṇa kill Śiśupāla? After all, He was not disturbed by his abuses because they were not related to Him. Kṛṣṇa killed Śiśupāla for his benefit, as can be seen in the fact that by being killed, Śiśupāla became liberated. Additionally, Kṛṣṇa killed Śiśupāla to benefit those who were suffering because of listening to his insults cast upon Kṛṣṇa.

Unlike conditioned living beings, Kṛṣṇa’s self and body are nondifferent, therefore He does not have a material body. As a consequence, He does not identify with a material form under the influence of ignorance, as is the case with ordinary living beings. Therefore also no one is dear to Him, nor does he hate anyone, as He Himself says in Bhagavad Gītā:

“I am equal to all beings. There is no one hateful or dear to Me, but they who worship Me with devotion are in Me and I am also in them.” (Gītā 9.29)

(to be continued)

]]>http://www.jiva.org/can-k%e1%b9%9b%e1%b9%a3%e1%b9%87a-be-attained-through-enmity-part-1/feed/0Krsna’s Body, Siddhanta in Sahityahttp://www.jiva.org/krsnas-body-siddhanta-in-sahitya/
http://www.jiva.org/krsnas-body-siddhanta-in-sahitya/#commentsSat, 21 Mar 2015 17:08:35 +0000malatihttp://www.satyanarayanadas.com/?p=7758Question: In BhagavadGita the Lord says ‘ksine punye martya-lokam vishanti’ and also we know from scriptures like Brhad-bhagavatamrita that the demigods regularly have the audience of Lord Vamanadev. So they develop such devotional credits by being in the direct presence of the Lord and serving Him in some ways. So how is it possible that they can fall to the lower realm of earthly existence. How can their punya due to bhakti be exhausted? Kindly clear my doubt.

Answer: They come down to perfect their devotion. When they become free of any material desires, they enter into Vaikuntha. So it is not a fall-down like others whose punya is over. If one is executing bhakti in heaven or in hell, one is devotee. In case of a devotee, fall-down means giving up bhakti. Otherwise a devotee sees heaven and hell as same – svarga-narakapavagamapi tulyarthadarshinah.

Question: One devotee was making a point that when Krishna or any avatara of the Lord comes to this material world, they take on a suitable body so that people can witness Him. For example in Krishna-lila, people like Kamsa, Duryodhana, etc. actually saw Krishna, but they did not see His spiritual form. In the wrestling arena in Mathura, Kamsa saw Him as death personified, other wrestlers saw Him as a lightning bolt, etc. Also Krishna says in Gita (9.11), avajananti mam mudha manusim tanum asritah: “Foolish people deride Me when I appear in a human form”. It means that Krishna actually takes a human form but it is like an iron rod in fire. When that body is in contact with Krishna it actually becomes surcharged with power and opulence. That body is ‘sat-cit-ananda’ because it is beyond the modes of nature. Just like the spiritual master, he is a manifestation of the Lord. The Lord comes to you as your guru because you cannot see Him directly because you have material senses and the Lord is all-spiritual. Even if the Lord was to come before you in His spiritual form, you will not be able to see Him, hear Him or touch Him.

Maharaj, I tried to explain to this devotee that the Lord never deals with the material energy directly. He comes to this world in His spiritual form. Because He wants the people to see Him they can see Him. But this devotee did not accept it. I was not able to convince
him. Actually this devotee has studied the Sankara-bhasya on Vedanta-sutra and it seems to me that some tinge of Mayavada has entered his heart. How to refute his points and establish the correct understanding?

Answer: Krsna does not take any material body or human body. He is what He is, as in the Old Testament, where God said, “I am what I am”. But when He is on earth, different people see Him differently according to their bhava – ye yatha mam. So if one does not have bhakti, then he does not see Him as He is, but He appears like a material person – avajanati mam mudha. That is why they disrespect Him because they do not see anything special in Him. Krsna can do this by His yogamaya. He does not need the help of mahamaya. Mahamaya cannot touch Him – maya pareti villajamana.

So although He is spiritual and cannot be seen by material eyes, during His appearance on earth He desires to be seen by people – sarve mam pashyantu. So yogamaya arranges for that. When a particular devotee is blessed during a period when He is not manifest on earth, then Krsna becomes visible only to such a devotee, but during His avatara period He becomes visible to all. However, He becomes visible as per one’s bhava. There is no need to assume that He takes a material body.

Dramatic Writing According to Siddhanta

Question: Srila Sanatana Gosvami mentions at the beginning of Brhad-bhagavatamrta that he has compiled this scripture by taking the essence of all the bhakti-shastras. A question which came to my mind is that if it is his compilation, then why does Sanatana Gosvami use Pariksit Maharaj, Mother Uttara, and Jaimini Rsi as the speakers and listeners in his book? Is it not like putting my own words in the mouth of some other people. Is it not imaginative writing? Please kindly clarify my doubt.

Answer: This is allowed in the writing of kavya or sahitya. This is called kavi-srishti or creation of the poet or author. This is according to the rules of sahitya.

Question: So is the story of Narada Muni going to different devotees like Brahmaji, Prahlad, Uddhava, etc. also kavi-srsti? Sanatana Gosvami is just trying to bring out the inherent mood of these great Vaishnavas in his literature, not that such incidents actually happened. And also, what about the story of Krishna crying in His room in the palace in Dvaraka, and then He entered Nava-Vrindavan, etc, etc. That must also be kavi-srsti, is it not? The author is trying to bring out the emotions of Krishna in relation to the Vrajavasis. Is this correct?

Answer: Narada travelling to different places – yes, it is all kavi-srsti, but based upon Srimad Bhagavatam and other scriptures. The story of Nava-vrindavan has some truth because a similar description is found in Padma Purana. But even if no such description is found in sastra, still there is nothing wrong with it because the purpose is not telling a story but the siddhanta. The story is the medium to convey the siddhanta. The other way is to tell the siddhanta directly, as in Vedanta Sutra. The same thing is told in the form of stories in Srimad Bhagavatam. Read SB12.3.14.

Again, I do not mean that the stories in Srimad Bhagavatam are false. Nothing is false there, but the purpose has to be understood. Read SB 12.3.15

]]>http://www.jiva.org/krsnas-body-siddhanta-in-sahitya/feed/0Sayujya-mukti and Bliss in Brahmanhttp://www.jiva.org/suyujya-mukti-and-bliss-in-brahman/
http://www.jiva.org/suyujya-mukti-and-bliss-in-brahman/#commentsFri, 06 Mar 2015 15:22:15 +0000malatihttp://www.satyanarayanadas.com/?p=7731Question: This question is regarding sayujya-mukti, where there is no personal relationship with the Lord. If a living entity attains this mukti (after practice), then does he eternally remain in that liberated state or does he fall back to the material sphere due to lack of love for the Personality of Godhead? According to my understanding, if he has attained mukti (any of the five types), then it means that he is liberated for good; there is no chance of again coming into the material realm.

Answer: Yes, your understanding is correct. Mukti means permanent freedom from bondage. Such a person has no karma, so what kind of body would he get if he were to come back? The material body is a product of past karma. If he came back, when would this happen? How much time would have to pass? How then is mukti different from going to heaven? All these questions arise. So he does not come back.

Question: But one objection is that since the natural state of every jiva is to serve Krishna (jivera svarupa haya krsnera nitya-dasa), how is it that the jiva can stay contented in the state of sayujya-mukti since there is no conception of serving the Lord in that state of existence.

Answer: Just being within His effulgence is service. Just as if you decorate the temple with a flower, then the flower is doing service. So being within brahmajyoti is service, and there is no difference between Krsna and Brahman – vadanti tat tattva-vidah.

Or you can understand that his svarupa has the potential to do seva, but he is not doing seva. Just as if you have a servant and he is sleeping, so you do not say that he is not a servant because he is not doing seva. Although he is sleeping, his identity is still that of a servant. So svarupa is the potential, and that potential may be active or inactive. In our conditioned state also, we do not serve, yet our svarupa is dasa.

Question: You said, “The servant is sleeping”. He is allowed to sleep eternally?

Answer: Please understand that an example is given to make something understandable. It should not be taken literally. Sayujya mukti is eternal but it is not sleeping. It is like sleeping. Just as in deep sleep one feels nothing external and remains absorbed in one’s own self and feels happy, in sayujya mukti one feels inner bliss.

Mukti means freedom from both the subtle and the gross body. It is of two types, personal and impersonal. In personal mukti, a mukta gets a spiritual body in Vaikuntha. In impersonal mukti, a mukta has no body – material or spiritual. In sleep one is still bound with material bodies – subtle and gross.

Question: CC Madya 8.257 seems to say that after merging in Brahman one gets a sthāvara-deha.

Answer: That is not true. Read the payar carefully. It says yaiche (= just as). It is like getting sthavara deha, not actually getting it. So the correct meaning is that one will be situated (avasthiti) just like (yaiche) in a sthavara deha. It means one is without any external consciousness, which is the same example I gave – like sleeping.

Question: Then what is the meaning of the second part of that line; someone desiring bhukti gets the body ‘just as/ like’ a demigod. Dimmock actually has instead of bhukti –-> bhakti: ‘Those who desire bhakti are ultimately perfected’, the body of a deva then means Vaikuntha, not going to the heavenly planets. Both bhukti and bhakti are possible. But this ‘just like/as’ is puzzling in regards to this deva-deha.

Answer: What is puzzling in this? Such people go to heaven and get suitable bodies similar to devas, the residents of heaven.

Question: Why similar to a deva? One gets a body *as* a demigod. To put your words as you phrased them for the sayujya mukta, but then for the bhogi it says yaiche = just as. It is like getting a deva deha , not actually getting it. So the correct meaning is that one will be situated (avasthiti) just like (yaiche) in a deva deha?

Answer: Going to heaven does not mean one becomes a deva. Not everybody is a deva in heaven. So one gets a body similar to devas. What is the difficulty in understanding that?

Question:Caitanya-candrāmṛta (5) describes this merging into Brahman as hell (kaivalyaṁ narakāyate). One is in some type of hell for eternity.

Answer: That is also not true. Please read carefully. It is hell for a devotee, not for the one who is in it. He wanted it. He got it. He is happy with it. But devotees consider it worse than hell, not even hell. Why? Because there is no bliss of doing seva in such a mukti. There is only brahmananada but no bhaktyananada or premananda. A devotee is not interested in brahmananda, so he considers it as hell or even worse than hell. There is a chance to come out of hell and be a devotee. But from brahma-sayujya there is no such possibility to come out. Thus a devotee considers it as worse than hell.

Question: You write, ‘no possibility to come out of brahma-sayujya’. There one is forever in some state of bliss– how is that possible, the soul wants ananda : ‘Variety is the mother of enjoyment/ the spice of life’. How can the soul be happy in homogeneousness?

Sanatana Gosvami in Brhad Bhagavatamrta 2.2.215 and commentary, describes the happiness in the brahmajyoti as plain, monotonous, undeveloped and so vague as to be virtually nonexistent. Here is the verse:

“The happiness felt in impersonal samādhi is plain, isolated, vague, and limited because in that samādhi the functions of the mind have ceased. But when the object of meditation appears in the active mind, that object is more vividly manifest, like sunlight reflected on a crystal mountain.”

COMMENTARY:

Thus if in impersonal samādhi any happiness is tasted, that happiness must be monotonous and undeveloped, so vague as to be virtually nonexistent.

Answer: Vague means indescribable. The word used is aspastam. It is so because in this state of samadhi there is no variety, no distinction of subject and object. It is monotonous but not non-existent. There are no manasic vrittis and thus no variety.

I gave the example of deep sleep. When you wake up from deep sleep, you can only say, “I slept happily”. If someone asks, “Can you describe your happiness?” there is nothing you can say. But happiness in Vaikuntha has variety and something can be said about it. So vague means no words to describe it.

As for “virtually non-existent” – I doubt that Sanatana Gosvami says it in the commentary. Please check the Sanskrit.

Question: This ‘virtually nonexistent’ is a translation of ISKCON BBT. But then Bhakti rasamrta sindhu 1.1.38 says bliss of brahmananda accumulated by samadhi lasting for half of Brahma’s life cannot compare to a drop of the ocean of bhakti. How can one be eternally happy with that if there is something superior?

Answer: First try to understand what it means to have brahma-sayujya mukti. There is no mind, no intelligence, no body – physical or material. Thus there is no way to think or discriminate in this state. This is what Sanatana Gosvami is saying in the verse cited above. It is just like the state of deep sleep or going into coma. One can remain in coma for years. Like that one can be in brahma-sayujya forever. You can come out of deep sleep because you have a material body. But in brahma-sayujya there is no body – material or spiritual, so there is no possibility of coming out of it. Again, the only example I can give is that of deep sleep.

Question: Also 1.1.39 and 40 say brahmananda is as insignificant as water in the hoof print of a cow / as insignificant as grass, and Sri Jiva Gosvami comments that there are plenty of such statements. How did these souls get in that position of Brahman? It is an unlimited area of effulgence.

Answer: That is anadi, without a beginning. Just as there are unlimited jivas in the material world. How did they get here? It is all anadi.

Question: Did they get elevated / promoted from the earth planet or are they are eternally in it? Why put on such low happiness for eternity?

Answer: One can also go from here to brahma-jyoti. That is matter of personal choice. Why do some people commit suicide? It does not make sense to a normal person, but when one is frustrated, one choses to kill oneself. Similarly, some people decide to have brahmananada, being frustrated with material suffering and ignorant of the bliss of bhakti.

Question: Some souls are eternally designated for Vaikuntha, some for brahma-yjoti (from which they can never ever get out?), some are in the dungeon of Durga. And there is nothing these jivas did to deserve these states, while all the positions in the material world—naraka, bhauma, svarga- are due to papa, punya- something one did to get that.

Answer: Those who are in Vaikuntha are happy. Those in brahma-jyoti are also happy, brahmananada. Those in the material world are given the chance to be happy. Bhagavan comes here to teach us. You may object that those in brahma-jyoti are not enjoying. But they are also not suffering. Moreover, they do not make this comparison between them and bhaktas that you make.

Neither any jiva nor Bhagavan have done anything for a jiva to be in Vaikuntha, in brahma-jyoti or in the material world. So neither any jiva nor Bhagavan is to be blamed or praised for it. Some things are just the way they are. They are beyond logic (acintya). Only shastra is pramana, and nothing else.

Question: I am looking for scriptural texts that approximate “krsnas tu bhagavan svayam” in the Bhagavata Purana (1.3.28). From the Gaudiya Vaishnava point of view, this is a paribhasa sutra proclaiming that Krishna is Supreme, i.e., the source of all other divine incarnations.

There is a similar verse in the Gita Govinda, I am told. I notice that after Jayadeva’s famous list of ten incarnations (in the Gita Govinda’s first song) it is said that all glories should go to Krishna, whose ten incarnations have just been enumerated. Is this the verse that approximates the Bhagavata verse? If so, what is the verse number? In one edition it appears to by 1.15. It is numbered differently elsewhere. Or am I mistaken?

I guess my question is twofold: (1) Where is the verse in the Gita Govinda that approximates that Bhagavata Purana verse mentioned above?

(2) Are there other such verses, in other texts, that declare Krishna to be the avatari as opposed to merely another avatara? Thank you.

Answer: In the current version of Brahma-vaivarta Purana, there is a verse with almost exactly the same words (4.117.12) sarve cAmSa-kalaAh pumsah krsnastu bhagavAn svayam

In the same Purana, there is another verse (4.22.49) which says that Krsna is paripurnatama, the source of all avataras. But I am personally doubtful of these verses because Sri Jiva Gosvami does not cite them. If they were extant in the Purana available to him, he would have definitely referred to them. It looks that there is lot of change in the Puranas. He refers to the birth story of Suka from Brahma Vaivarta but it is not found in the present editions.
In Krsna Sandarbha he cites a verse from Padma Purana which says, krsnastu bhagavAn svayam, but this verse is not found in the current version of PP. Krsnastu bhagavan svayam is also found in the 92nd chapter of Krsna Samhita. There is also another which also says that Krsna is svayam avatari. It could be in Narada pancaratra, I need to check.

Besides this, I think Brahma Samhita verses 39, and 48 can also be considered, especially krsna svayam abhavat. And of course also the first verse, sarva-karanakaranam.

And the last verse of dasavatara-stottra by Jayadeva says – dasAkrtikrte krsnaya tubyam namah - Obeisances to You, Krsna, who manifests the ten forms.

*

Power and Politics without Dharma

Question: The centralization of temporal power has been a big problem in the West. Power corrupts if not based on dharma. What is your view on this phenomena?

Answer: In India, in the varnashrama system, the kings ruled but they were under Brahmanas. Thus, there was a balance of power. King’s main business was to see that people follow their respective dharma. Everything else was secondary. It is for this reason that Lord Rama cut-off Shambuka’s head. Whether the story is true or interpolated – the point is very clear. Even Lord Krishna has three avataras of Brahma, Visnu and Siva, to decentralize power.

Question: I think that democracy will never be good for the development of spirituality in any country. Democracy since 230 years invariably brings money into power by control of the media and corruption. We call this plutocracy. The best would be constitutional monarchy sustained by dharma like in the days of yore. What is your opinion on this matter?

Answer: Democracy or autocracy or plutocracy – nothing will work if the rulers are not trained in dharma. As long as people are conditioned by their body and are ignorant about dharma, nothing will work. There is bound to be corruption.

*

The Bliss of Bhakti

Question: When bhakti manifests in the heart of a devotee, it is said that the Lord experiences extreme bliss. Can you explain this?

Answer: It is Lord who gives His own energy in the form of bhakti to a devotee. Once the devotee has that bhakti, he/she does loving service to Bhagavan. Then Bhagavan feels delighted with it, although it is an outcome of His own shakti. It is like a father giving money to his young child who goes and buys some nice drink for him. The father feels very happy and says, “Your drink is very delicious”.

The second objection raised by Vidura was that if the avatāras and their activities of sustaining the creation are not directly performed by Bhagavān, then they cannot be part of His svarūpa, as had been established in BhagavatSandarbha. This has already been answered at the end of the previous section (93.5), where Jīva Gosvāmī said that Bhagavān, personally appearing as the avatāras, acts only to give delight to His devotees and only through the agency of His intrinsic potency.

On the question of partiality, Śrī Jīva further adds that even when Bhagavān chastises or kills a wicked person, He does not do so out of a negative bias, because such actions are auspicious or beneficial to the wicked person receiving His punishment. Jīva provides an example from Ayurveda, according to which jaundice is caused by a disturbance in the bodily humor called pitta. This diseased condition alters the affected person’s perception of taste, making sweets appear as bitter.

At the same time, eating sugar candy is said to be one of the cures for jaundice and once cured, the patient will again be able to savor its sweetness. Eating sugar candy may seem like a punishment to the sick person because of its bitter taste, but the end result is beneficial. Similarly, it may appear that the Lord is punishing the wicked when He chastises them, but His actions culminate in the purification of their evil tendencies.

When Bhagavān appears on earth, it seems as if He is also under the jurisdiction of the extrinsic energy. Otherwise, how is it that asuras are able to oppose the Lord, and that His devotees are tormented by the asuras? This makes it seem as if the devotees also undergo the outcome of their karma.

Śrī Jīva responds that although Bhagavān’s intrinsic potency is beyond the jurisdiction of māyā, who can accomplish unimaginable tasks, she nonetheless behaves in a way that makes Bhagavān’s pastimes appear to be under her control. He gives an example to make it clear. Everyone is working under the influence of their past karma. When some meritorious or unmeritorious reactions are due to occur to a person as an outcome of past karmas, one may see corresponding omens. The omen itself is not the cause of the good or bad results, merely an indicator, yet one may think it is instrumental in bringing about the happy or miserable situation. A common omen is a black cat crossing one’s path. This is supposed to bring some inauspicious outcome. People usually get upset at the cat, but the cat is not instrumental in bringing the result. If the omen is true, she is only an indicator of the future event.

Similarly, Bhagavān is engaged in His līlā, and māyā follows it simultaneously like an omen. To an ignorant person, it appears as if māyā is causing His pastimes. Sometimes, however, māyā is unable to keep pace with the līlā. In such situations, the supreme independence of the līlā becomes explicit. Śrī Jīva here gives an example of an occasion when this occurred.

Śrī Kṛṣṇa’s guru was Sandīpani Muni. When Kṛṣṇa’s education was over, He approached His guru to offer him guru-dakṣiṇā, the offering made by a student to his teacher as an act of gratitude. Sandīpani requested Kṛṣṇa to bring his son back to him after he had been lost off the Arabian Sea coast at Prabhāsa and was presumably dead. Kṛṣṇa went to Prabhāsa and learned that the boy had been killed by a demon named Śaṅkhāsura. He went to Yama, the lord of death and demanded that he produce his teacher’s son. Such a thing is not possible from any conventional point of view. How could a dead person be brought back to life? The child’s body had already been devoured by the demon, so how could he be returned? Such a pastime does not fit within the jurisdiction of māyā. The cosmic matrix of materiality is unable to cope with such an anomaly or to accommodate it in any way as an operation feasible within its hierarchy of laws.

Śrī Jīva explains that pastimes that demonstrate the super-independent nature of Bhagavān are rare. In most cases, His acts do appear to correspond to the law of karma and thus there is no apparent contradiction in them, such as an action not followed by any result, or a result attained without any action undertaken to achieve it. In a similar fashion, it is seen that even great devotees seem to undergo suffering like ordinary people as if undergoing the outcome of past karma.

If someone bears malice towards Bhagavān’s devotees, then He protects them by chastising the wicked. Bhagavān’s anger in such cases is also a manifestation of the intrinsic potency and only increases His bliss. He grants such offenders brahma-kaivalya because their disease of envying the devotees is beyond any other cure. This is befitting because they do not warrant a place in Bhagavān’s abode due to their envious nature. So, Bhagavān shears them of their envy, but does not grant them bhakti. As such, the only suitable destination for them is brahma-sāyujya.

Alternatively, He may grant them a place in heaven, which is desired by materialistic people ignorant of their ultimate welfare. Devotees consider both these positions equivalent to hell. Their interest is simply in executing devotion. If they were somehow prevented from that, then heaven or hell would make no difference to them. In fact, they would prefer hell to brahma-sāyujya, even though this state is attained by advaita-vādins only after undergoing great austerities because there is absolutely no possibility of devotional service there. They consider it as nothing more than spiritual suicide.

So, Bhagavān does not punish a devotee by giving him brahma-sāyujya, even if he should become envious of or inimical to another devotee. This is because the seed of devotion, which is indestructible, has already taken root in him. As a result, no devotee could ever desire brahma-sāyujya.

Bhagavān makes such envious devotees suffer the consequences of their offensive acts and eventually, after the defect of envy has been erased, they are reinstated in their identity as devotees. The Lord’s chastisement of such envious devotees is only to rectify them, like a mother’s anger towards her ill-behaved children. Her intention is never to harm the child, but only to correct its mischievous behavior.

Thus, it is concluded that Bhagavān acts only for the welfare and pleasure of His devotees. The acts of creation, etc., are concomitant to that, occurring through the agency of the extrinsic potency. Bhagavān is like the philosopher’s stone, which is equally disposed to all objects, but turns into gold the iron that comes in contact with it.

The Lord is altogether free from bias. Because He is utterly devoid of the experience of material miseries, His awareness cannot be directly aroused to compassion at the plight of materialistic people. Additionally, He grants brahma-sāyujya or heaven to those who envy His devotees. He sometimes grants devotion even to the wicked just because they imitate the dress or mood of a devotee. And, finally, He punishes those devotees who envy other devotees, but only to rectify them.

In the last part of this anuccheda, Śrī Jīva Gosvāmī refers to another episode that deals with the same topic of Bhagavān’s biased behaviour. After King Parikṣit heard that two sons of Diti were killed by Varadeva and Nṛsiṁha, he was intrigued by the behaviour of Bhagavān. He presented his doubt to his teacher, Śukadeva, and listed the qualities of Bhagavān that imply His unbiased nature.

Vidura had a similar doubt: ”How can Bhagavān, who is beyond the guṇas of prakṛti, engage in acts of creation, maintenance, and dissolution of the cosmos?” This is a prominent doubt that troubles the Lord’s devotees. In fact, it is one of the troublesome topics discussed in Vedānta. Śrīmad Bhāgavatam, being an explanation of Vedānta, naturally tackles this subject elaborately.

Furthermore, [the fact that Bhagavān does not personally act to sustain the universe] does not disprove that the avatāras are endowed with the intrinsic potency. The sole purpose of Bhagavān is to please His devotees through the absolute transcendence of His self-willed līlā, and so because whatever He does [in this regard] is without attachment or malice toward all others, He is devoid of bias. Rather, just as the tongue inflicted with jaundice develops an aversion for sugar, similarly even when non-devotees are subjected to the Lord’s chastisement it is simply for their welfare because it counteracts their wickedness.

Therefore, according to Śrī Śuka’s statement at the end of the Ninth Canto (SB 9.24.57-58), during the dissolution the jīva is merged [in Paramātmā] along with its limiting adjuncts (upādhis), and hence there is no possibility of engaging in meritorious action. Consequently [at the beginning of a new creation cycle], the Lord blesses the jīva by generating its adjunctive body so that it can perform pious acts. This is also confirmed by the commentary of Śrīdhara Svāmī.

Indeed, O king, other than the bestowal of mercy (māyā) upon those devotees who are as dear as His very own Self (ātmā), there is no cause for the appearance and actions of the Lord who is transcendental, the witness of all, and the Self of all beings. The activity of the Lord’s Māyā is meant for the birth, sustenance and dissolution of all souls while His grace is intended to grant them self-realization and cessation of the cycle of birth and death. (SB 9.24.57-58)

And the kings captured by Jarāsandha prayed to Kṛṣṇa:

You, O Lord of the universe, have descended on earth with Your plenary manifestation in order to protect the virtuous and chastise the wicked. Consequently, we [Your devotees] do not understand how anyone can transgress Your command or how people [protected by You] can suffer the results of their own karma. (SB 10.70.27)

Svāmī comments: “Even though You have descended to protect the virtuous, we are suffering. Why is that? Meanwhile, others like Jarāsandha are disobeying even Your own order. Moreover, even those people who are protected by You are suffering from their karma. All this we do not understand. The implication here is that neither scenario conforms to the norms of logic”.

According to this comment, although the Lord’s līlā is independent [i.e., self-willed], it is only Māyā, the performer of difficult tasks, which impels and arranges for the activities of the suras and the asuras. It is because of her that the specific actions of the jīvas, who are endeavoring separately according to their individual karma, occur, being synchronized with their corresponding auspicious and inauspicious omens. This is seen in the world also. But sometimes when Māyā is unable to follow the trajectory of the Lord’s līlā, then only the independent nature of the Supreme Controller becomes manifest, as in the case of the Lord’s order to Yama:

Following My order, O great king, bring My guru’s son, who was brought here due to his own karma. (SB10.45.45)

Because this [intervention of the Lord] is very rare, however, it does not lead to the defect of rejecting a desirable outcome and accepting an undesirable one in all circumstances.
Now, if some bear malice towards the devotees, then the Lord’s own hostility towards such people is not a defect because that is part of what it means to favor His devotees. Rather, because such hostility [towards those who oppose the Lord’s devotees] nourishes His affection for His devotee, it is a unique manifestation of bliss that is part of the hlādinī potency. Because of this hostility, the Lord awards such people oneness with Brahman, which is like a desert in relation to the all-exceeding nectar of bhakti-rasa, which at every step manifests varieties of condensed bliss. The attainment of oneness with Brahman is acutely opposed to the nectar of devotion to the Lord, and [is granted only because it] is the proper treatment for a person whose disease [of enmity to the devotees or God] cannot be cured by anything else.

The prowess of the Lord that arises because of this [hostility] keeps His svarūpa-śakti [in the form of bhakti] concealed [from those who are the object of His hostility], and thus [from the devotees’ point of view, brahma-kaivalya] is equivalent (tulyam) to the non-existence of an object after its destruction (dhvaṁsābhāva). This equivalence view is expressed in the following statement, “[All those devoted to Lord Nārāyaṇa] regard all circumstances as equal, whether it be promotion to heaven, liberation from material existence, or dwelling in hell.” (SB 6.17.28).

According to this principle, Bhagavān awards a very special distinct punishment [i.e., brahma-kaivalya] to them [those who have hatred for God or His devotees]; for others [devotees] it is, however, exceedingly intolerable, and even to those desiring sense pleasure, who have absolutely no interest in it. By such punishment, their complete material misery in the form of formidable heinous desires is also destroyed because the Lord’s nature is such that His actions culminate in everyone’s welfare.

Parameśvara gives such people even that which is aspired for by those who worship the Absolute with an exclusive sense of oneness and which is attainable only with great ardor. Sometimes He even sends them to a special heaven that is intensely sought by those who cherish sensual enjoyment. Such a destination is, however, indistinguishable from hell for those who know the Supreme Reality, and hence it is filthy like worms in stool. Therefore, the wives of the Kālīya snake said: “You regard Your enemy as well as Your sons as equal, and You chastise while anticipating only auspicious results [for the recipients of such punishment].” (SB 10.16.33)

The word suta, “sons”, here refers to the devas, who are maintained just like sons; and the word damam, “chastisement”, implies, “because even Your chastisement” [is intended for their benefit].

In those scriptural passages, however, where it is heard that even [wicked persons] such as Pūtanā attained the same destination as the most exalted devotees (uttama-bhaktas), it is perfectly clear that these incidents occur exclusively through the glory of imitating such devotees. This has been described in statements such as, “Even Pūtanā along with her family attained You merely by dressing in the guise of a mother.” (SB 10.14.35)

If, however, some devotees somehow offend other saintly devotees, then by that very offense they experience the misery of hatred towards devotees and Bhagavān for a long time like the intense scorching of an underwater volcano, which is diametrically opposed [to their prior devotional disposition]. Thereafter, if they should somehow come into contact with Bhagavān again, even if only in the guise of a devotee [like Pūtanā], all their defects arising from their offenses are destroyed and they along with their associates attain His abode. They do not attain oneness in Brahman (brahma-kaivalya) because the seed of bhakti is of an imperishable nature. Bhagavān’s anger towards them is like that of a mother towards her children. Therefore, everything is consistent.

Bhagavān Himself is equal to everyone, beloved to all, and the well-wishing friend of every living being, O Brāhmaṇa. So why did He kill the sons of Diti on behalf of Indra as if He were biased [in his favor]? (SB 7.1.1)

Bhagavān, being Paramātmā, is equal (samaḥ) to all; He is the friend (suhṛt), or one who acts for the welfare of all; and [He is] the beloved (priyaḥ), meaning the object of everyone’s love. Since He is thus equally disposed to everyone, and the well-wisher and object of love for all, how could He slay the asuras as if biased against them? The question raised here about bias [viṣamatvam, i.e., the negation of samaḥ] is used in an indicative sense (upalakṣaṇa) [suggesting that the question could have been rephrased substituting the other qualities named in the first line of the verse]. For example, “[How could He slay the asuras] as if He were not their well-wishing friend (asuhṛdi) or as if not beloved to them (apriya)?”

Another example of bhakti impelling a bhakta to act in an apparently mundane way is found in the Tenth Canto in the story of the twin Arjuna trees. In that narration, the sage Nārada curses the sons of Kubera who were enjoying water sports with young damsels while completely intoxicated and naked. Nārada cursed them to become trees. But it was a blessing in disguise, as he himself said:

Attaining the proximity of Kṛṣṇa after one hundred celestial years, you will return to your own heavenly abode and will have acquired devotion. (SB 10.10.22)

The two brothers’ attainment of devotion is clear from the prayers they recited to Kṛṣṇa after He uprooted their tree bodies, allowing them to regain their original forms as the sons of Kubera. So Nārada’s curse was, in fact, a blessing: “To bless them both Śrī Nārada pronounced a curse upon them, saying…” (tayor anugrahārthāya śāpaṁ dāsyann idaṁ jagau, SB 10.10.7).

Thus, the conclusion is that the compassion of Bhagavān or His devotee manifests as a result of their bhakti and not because of the material suffering of the person so blessed. If their compassion were to manifest at the mere sight of the material suffering of all the conditioned souls, then everybody would have been blessed by Bhagavān and no one would remain suffering in the universe.

It is possible that Bhagavān can know about the pain of a person indirectly through His devotee. A devotee in this world has had experience of material misery, and thus it is possible for him to empathize with a suffering person. If he then desires to bless such a person and prays to Bhagavān to be compassionate on him, then Bhagavān may bestow His blessings on that person. Thus, Śrī Jīva concludes that Bhagavān acts either to please His devotee or directly in response to bhakti, and not in relation to the work of creating, sustaining or destroying the universe.

Bhagavān is free from the defect of partiality because He is immune to material pleasure and pain. In spite of this, however, He holds His devotees as especially dear, and He loves and serves them exactly as they love and serve Him. In this respect His nature is said to be exactly like that of a wish-fulling tree (kalpa-taru svabhāva), or in other words, a tree from the heavenly realm (sura-druma) [see verses SB 8.23.8, and 10.38.22 respectively]. It is the nature of a wish-fulfilling tree to respond in perfect uniformity with the aspiration of the supplicant. It responds differently not out of bias but only because the requests of the aspirants are different. That is its impartiality. To impose the same reward on everyone irrespective of their desire would be biased.

So, that Bhagavān loves and serves His devotees specifically is only because they are the only one’s interested in such a relation with Him. For Bhagavān, not to respond in this manner to His devotees would violate the unbiased nature of a wish-fulfilling tree. Furthermore, to remain neutral in regard to all others is simply the appropriate response to their own neutrality in regard to Him. It is what they choose, and so He graciously responds accordingly. From this perspective too Bhagavān is to be understood as unbiased. Alternatively, Jīva Gosvāmī argues, even if we inevitably admit that Bhagavān is partial, because it is the nature of everyone without exception, it should not be considered a contradiction in Him because of His trans-rational opulence. His trans-rational power can accomplish acts that defy reason, and thus He remains free of any blemish, which in this case is simply our inability to comprehend His actions.

Before Kṛṣṇa appeared on earth, He ordered the devas to appear in the Yadu dynasty (SB 10.1.22). Later on, when He took birth, they assisted Him in His pastimes. If He requires the help of the devas who are material beings, then it may seem like a lack of independence or self-sufficiency on His part. In Kṛṣṇa Sandarbha (Anuccheda 43) it will be explained that these devas were partially empowered by the Lord’s potency, and thus He was never, in fact, dependent upon them.

Thus, the conclusion is that Bhagavān is complete in Himself. He acts only for the delight of His devotees, and the maintenance of the universe is but a concomitant effect of those pastimes with His devotees.

]]>http://www.jiva.org/bhagavan-grace-and-material-suffering-part-5/feed/0Babaji Awarded the Position of Mahanta in Vrindavanhttp://www.jiva.org/babaji-awarded-the-position-of-mahanta-in-vrindavan/
http://www.jiva.org/babaji-awarded-the-position-of-mahanta-in-vrindavan/#commentsMon, 26 Jan 2015 20:10:43 +0000malatihttp://www.satyanarayanadas.com/?p=7666On January 25th, thousands of renounced Vaishnavas and other guests gathered at Jiva Institute to commence the official installment of Babaji Sri Satyanarayana Dasa as a Mahanta. This position is awarded by an organization called Catuh Sampradaya Virakta Vaishnava Parisad (“Association of the Renounced Vaishnavas of the Four Sampradayas,” CSVVP) presided over by Prahlad Das of Gore Dauji temple in Vrindavan. The CSVVP has a voice to convey certain issues to the government or to people in general. It also has the authority to rebuke someone for not following the principles of dharma.

Welcome festoon for Babaji

The pompous function was attended by the prominent Vaishnavas and dignitaries of Vrindavan. Hridyananda Dasa Baba, the oldest Gaudiya Vaishnava, came to bless Babaji, as well as Sri Vasudeva and Sri Caitanya Gosvamis of Radha-raman Temple. Sri Ananata Dasa Babaji Maharaja, Mahanta of Radha Kunda, was unable to come but send his prime disciple Sri Keshava Dasa Babaji with a garland and a shawl from the Samadhi Mandir of Sri Raghunatha Dasa Gosvami.

The purohit peforms puja to begin the ceremony

Mahantas are only appointed on the request of the CSVVP, either because they are the head of a particular place or ashram (i.e., the Jiva Institute) or to choose their successor. A prerequisite for the appointment is good conduct. This tradition is more than one hundred years old. There are several hurdles to cross before a person is officially installed as Mahanta. Prior to it, Babaji was invited to a meeting of all the members of the executive committee of approximately 300 Mahantas to present his acceptance of this position. After being approved, he attended several functions, the last of which was completed at the old Kathia Baba Ashram on Mahatma Gandhi Road last week. Babaji has been requested for many years to accept this position and he finally agreed. All the Mahantas are greatly pleased to have him as part of their group.

Armies of the Past

Babaji with the president of CSVVP (left) and the president of Balabhadri Akhada (in saffron)

The CSVVP was originally founded to combat Advaitavada sannyasis and Shaiva sadhus, who used to threaten and harass Vaishnavas, especially at Kumbha Mela, which is the biggest religious gathering. Kumbha Mela is celebrated four times every twelve years at places of pilgrimage on four sacred Indian rivers. Previousy, these sannyasis, who were very prominent at Kumbha Mela, would bar Vaishnavas from taking a dip in the holy water at the auspicious time. They would even fight and beat them. To counteract these threats, a great Vaishnava by the name Balmukanda gathered Vaishnavas to form an army around the 16th or 17th century. Over time, several more of such armies came into existence. They are called Akhadas (lit., wrestling organizations) and still exist today. Vaishnavas have three of them—the Sri Panch Balabhadri Nirvani Ani Akhada, the Nirmohi Ani Akhada, and the Sri Panca Digambara Ani Akhada. Shaivites have eleven Akhadas.

The Akhadas, lead by Mahantas in smaller formations, used to act like armies and their soldiers are stilled called Nagas. Unlike the followers of Lord Shiva, Vaisnava Nagas do not go naked. The Nagas were trained in sword fighting, stick wielding, and other such martial arts. One can still witness this during the Shai Snaan festival (“Royal Dip”) with its royal procession of Akhada chiefs and their Nagas, who demonstrate their fighting skills. They resemble the army of a king on the move to attack. However, the old animosity between the Vaishnava and Shaiva Akhadas does not exist anymore.

In the past, Vaishnavas from all over India used to convene at Vrindavan before Kumbha Mela. From there, they would move to the Kumbha Mela location like a big army. This custom is still followed when there is Kumbha at Haridwara. At that time, one can observe a small Kumbha of Vaishnavas in Vrindavan.

We Gaudiyas belong to the first Akhada, in short called Balabhadri Akhada (Akhada of Balarama, Krishna’s brother). The head of this Akhada is Sri Dharma Dasa Maharaja from Ayodhya. Maharaja came all the way from Ayodhya to Vrindavan, travelling for 12 hours, just to bless Babaji on this occasion. This was a very special visit, because usually he does not attend such functions.

Babaji’s New Responsibilities

Sumptous feast for the sadhus

As Mahanta of Jiva Institute, Babaji is expected to not only look after the ashrama, but also to maintain good character and spread dharma. As the tradition prescribes it, he is expected to participate in Kumbha Mela. He will also have to attend regular meetings on current issues and problems of Vrindavan, e.g. the current UP government’s intention to abolish Vrindavan’s Municipality and merge it with Mathura. The Mahantas are opposing this move, since as a consequence wine and meat could be sold in Vrindavan, as is the case now in Mathura. This would destroy Vrindavan’s identity.

As a Mahanta, Babaji would like to focus on issues related to Vrindavan, such as maintaining its sanctity. He is especially concerned to maintain the character and structure of the old town. He is also pleading for better arrangements as regards cleanliness, better roads, no loud loudspeakers and a solution to the monkey problem. With all these new duties, Babaji’s main focus is still the activities of Jiva Institute, especially teaching, translating, commenting on, and publishing the works of Jiva Gosvami and other acharyas of the Gaudiya school.

Śrī Jīva now responds to the second objection regarding the accusation of Bhagavān’s being biased. Earlier he established that Bhagavān acts only to give delight to His devotees, which seemingly implicates Him in bias.

Śrī Jīva writes that a person acts to please others for two reasons only, either to satisfy his or her own selfish interest or just to bestow welfare without any motive. In the first case there is no question of partiality to others, since one’s interest is only in one’s own benefit. When a person acts solely with a motive for personal gain, he can be called selfish but not biased towards others. Since Jīva Gosvāmī’s whole point here is to disprove the charge that the Lord is biased, the first case shows itself to be irrelevant to the objection, since there is nothing to disprove. Where selfishness alone is the motive for one’s actions, partiality is necessarily an impossibility. If there is partiality on behalf of a selfish person it is not really partiality because the person only acts for selfish motive and not to benefit someone else. Moreover, selfishness cannot be the case with Bhagavān who is completely self-satisfied. He has nothing to gain, being ātmārāma and āpta-kāma.

This leads us to consideration of the second possibility, that in acting for the welfare of others the Lord does demonstrate partiality towards His devotees. Śrī Jīva begins his reply to this possibility by first examining the psychology of compassion. He explains that compassion is a transformation of the heart or the mental quantum (citta), which arises when the heart directly contacts the misery of another. Only when impelled by such compassion is a person moved to act for another’s welfare. This means that one feels empathy in relation to others’ misery. The feeling of empathy impels one to remove the misery of the person with whom one empathizes.

In the case of Bhagavān, however, such empathy is not possible because He is completely transcendental to any material experience. Feelings of pain and pleasure are modifications of the citta, which is an evolute of prakṛti. Bhagavān is beyond any tinge of māyā, as established earlier. Therefore, He cannot be touched by any material misery and so cannot feel the pain of others in His heart and be aroused to compassion. As such, there is no possibility of His being biased.

Someone will no doubt say that Bhagavān is omniscient and therefore must know the pains and pleasures of others. This is undeniably true, but Śrī Jīva emphasizes that in fact He does not feel them in His heart. He knows such suffering through the experience of others, not directly. This also means that He is not impelled by compassion because to be compassionate the pain of another has to touch one’s own heart.

If one then argues that Bhagavān must not be omniscient because of His absence of awareness of misery, Śrī Jīva says that this too is denied by the example of the sun. The fact that Bhagavān has no direct experience of the material suffering of the people of the world in no way impedes His all-knowingness, just as the absence of darkness in the sun does not contradict the all-pervasiveness of its radiance. On the contrary, His absence of awareness of misery should be taken as a positive attribute. We can accept that the Lord can have some knowledge of misery, but not the direct experience of it. If Bhagavān were able to experience material misery, then out of compassion He would have delivered everyone from the material world at the mere sight of their suffering. But this has not happened, which proves that He is immune to the experience of material misery. Śrī Jīva says that it is specifically for this reason that Bhagavān cannot be called cruel for not alleviating the suffering of humanity.

One may question that if Bhagavān is unable to feel the pain of the living beings, then how is it that He is able to feel the pleasure of His devotees? If He acts to give them pleasure, then He must feel it also. If not, how would He know that devotees are deriving pleasure from His actions? The process of experiencing pain and pleasure is the same. If pain is material, so must pleasure.

To this Śrī Jīva Gosvāmī replies that the pain and pleasure of a devotee are not material. Rather they are both manifestations of bhakti, the intrinsic potency of Bhagavān. A devotee feels happy only by giving pleasure to Bhagavān and His devotees and feels miserable if unable to do so. His pain and pleasure are not independent of Bhagavān. Therefore, Bhagavān experiences only His intrinsic potency while realizing the pain and pleasure of His devotee. Thus, the principle that He is unable to experience material pain and pleasure is not violated.

An objection is raised to this assertion. There is the story of Gajendra, the elephant king, whose leg was seized by a crocodile while he drank water from a lake. He struggled for a long time to release himself, but was unsuccessful. Finally he prayed to Bhagavān for help, who appeared immediately on the spot and severed the head of the crocodile with His chakra. The elephant was suffering from pain, and Bhagavān, being compassionate, released him. This means that Bhagavān was able to empathize with the pain of Gajendra.

Śrī Jīva replies that it is a fact that Gajendra was in material pain. But Bhagavān did not rescue him out of empathy for his pain, but rather because of his surrender in the form of, “You are my only shelter.” Such surrender is nothing but bhakti, and thus it is bhakti alone that impelled Bhagavān to rescue him.

With regard to the second objection [that Bhagavān is subject to favoritism], we say the following: One engages in giving delight to others for two possible reasons: to attain what one desires from the other, or sometimes just to fulfill the other’s desire. The first option is not relevant to the objection raised here because when one acts for one’s own interest alone, there is no question of partiality whatsoever [toward others, since one’s concern would then be only with oneself]. In the second case, the desire to engage in acts favorable to another arises only after experiencing first hand their happiness and misery, not merely by some general awareness of it. This is because there is no possibility of the heart undergoing a transformation in the form of compassion without having been touched by another’s pain. As is said:

One whose foot has been pricked by a thorn would not desire others to suffer such agony, having understood the sameness of all living beings [in regard to the experience of pain] through external signs, but not a person who has never been so pricked. (SB 10.10.14)

Therefore, for Bhagavān who has an eternal form of supreme bliss and is ever free from sin, there is no experience of the material misery called “pleasure,” what to speak of what is commonly known as misery, just as there is a complete absence of darkness in light or of an owl’s capacity to see the sun.

Some, although desiring to deny the relation with misery in Bhagavān, speak in the following way: There is knowledge of the experience of misery in the Lord, yet that knowledge is of the misery experienced by others and not His own misery. Such an explanation, however, is like finding oneself face to face with the toll man at the river crossing in the morning after taking a roundabout path throughout the night to avoid him [i.e., the very same problem still exists]. The experience of misery verily means that such misery touches the heart, whether such contact comes from one’s own misery or from that of another, because there is no distinction as to whether the heart’s relation with misery arises from one’s own suffering or that of another.

The flaw [posited by some] of the Bhagavān not being omniscient [because of His absence of awareness of misery] is also negated by the very same example of the sun [indicating that Bhagavān’s non-awareness of misery in no way contradicts His omniscience, just as the absence of darkness in the sun does not obstruct the all-pervasiveness of its radiance]. On the contrary, the Lord’s non-awareness of misery has been shown to be an attribute. Therefore, let it be admitted that there is knowledge of some misery in general in Bhagavān, though He certainly has no direct experience of misery. It is specifically for this reason that the flaw of cruelty in Bhagavān is denied, even though the jīvas are suffering from material miseries even at present, and this too in spite of the fact that Bhagavān is utterly capable of all action, all inaction and all contrary action whatsoever, and moreover, He being the crest jewel among all those who are benevolently disposed to others to the supreme extent. The happiness of devotees, however, is indeed a form of Bhagavān’s devotion, and their misery too is simply a consequence of obstacles in attaining Him. By this the melting of the heart for Bhagavān is greatly increased, and this is nothing other than bhakti. Sometimes, as in the case of Gajendra, where the misery experienced is purely of the material variety, bhakti becomes manifest in the same way, through the utterance of expressions such as, “He alone is my refuge”.

Sometimes, as in the case of the twin Arjuna trees, the devotion of devotees like Śrī Nārada becomes manifest. Thus, it is exclusively the experience of a devotee’s devotion in the form of humility that impels Bhagavān to compassion, and not material misery, because it is wrong to assume an inappropriate cause when an appropriate one is available. Moreover, if the existence of misery were the sole cause behind His compassion then the sufferings of worldly existence would have been completely uprooted.

If, however, one argues that material misery is undeniably an indirect cause, then let it be so, there is no harm. Therefore, it is established that in either case, it is only the experience of the devotee’s bhakti that impels Bhagavān to bestow delight upon the devotee.

Thereafter this is to be said – if in spite of experiencing directly the happiness and misery of others, Bhagavān were to abandon them and grant happiness to or redress the misery of others instead, then only would He be subject to the charge of being biased. But Śrī Bhagavān, like a wish-fulfilling tree, is not liable to such accusation because there is no experience of material happiness or misery in Him. This is stated by Śrī Akrura:

No one is dear to Him, nor is anyone a bosom friend. There is no one who is not dear to Him, nor anyone who is an object of hate or even indifference. Nevertheless, He loves and serves His devotees exactly as they love Him, just as a tree from the heavenly realm rewards those who approach it with the specific objects they seek. (SB 10.38.22)

In this verse, the phrase, na kaścit, “no one”, means someone other than the devotees, because according to the following statement, Bhagavān considers His devotees to be dear to Himself:

What learned person would approach anyone for shelter other than You, who are filled with love for Your devotees, truthful, a well-wisher to all, and grateful? (SB 10.48.26)

Śrī Mahādeva also said:

No one is dear to Him and nobody is undear, no one is His own and nobody is a stranger to Him either. Because He, Bhagavān Hari, is the very Self of all living beings, He is the beloved of all creatures. And this greatly fortunate Citraketu is His dear servant, being of equal vision towards all and established in perfect peace. Indeed, I too am a beloved devotee of the infallible Bhagavān. (SB 6.17.33-34)

Śrī Prahlāda too expressed the same sentiment:

How wonderful are Your acts, O Lord! You have created the worlds through the cosmic play of Your immeasurable Yogamāyā. You are omniscient, the Self of all beings, and of equal vision. So, although You are naturally without bias, You hold Your devotees dear, simply because it is Your nature to respond [in perfect uniformity with the core disposition of the supplicant] in the manner of a wish-fulfilling tree. (SB 8.23.8)

The meaning is as follows: Since You hold Your devotees dear, and moreover are of equal vision, it is Your nature to be without bias (aviṣama); there is no favoritism [in Your character]. This idea is expressed by the adjectival compound kalpa-taru-svabhāvaḥ that implies the reason why He is to be understood as unbiased [in spite of the special dearness of His devotees]: “Because it is Your nature to respond [in perfect uniformity] in the manner of a wish-fulfilling tree.” Therefore, You do not have a biased nature though You appear to, and this is extraordinarily wonderful.

Alternatively, it may have to be concluded that because of the partiality observed in Him in the form of siding with His devotees, and this too in an entity characterized as a wish-fulfilling tree, mentioned in the latter verse (SB 8.23.8), and thus equally approachable by everyone whosoever, partiality of this kind is simply inevitable, being the nature of one who is equal to all (samasya). Thus [in accordance with this alternative explanation], the words aviṣama-svabhāva should be read and explained as viṣama-svabhāva, namely that He is biased.

Similarly, in the verse previously quoted [where the example of a “tree from the heavenly realm” is given, SB 10.38.22], in the statement, “He loves and serves His devotees” (bhaktān bhajate), there is indeed bias applicable to Him. In reality, however, the transrational opulence in Śrī Bhagavān is the primary reason for there not being any contradiction in Him.

While commenting upon the following verse, “Obeisances to You again and again who foster Your devotees” (SB 2.4.14), Śrīdhara Svāmī says, “[Śukadeva] now speaks of the Bhagavān’s transrational majestic power to explain how His apparent favoritism is not a flaw.”

The same idea is expressed by Śrī Bhīṣma:

In Him, who is the Self of everyone, who has equal vision, is devoid of duality, and altogether free from egotism and vice, there is no partiality whatsoever in regard to the fitness or unfitness of so-called higher or lower actions. Yet, O King, just behold His compassion for those who are exclusively devoted to Him! For Śrī Kṛṣṇa Himself has come before me just when I am about to breathe my last. (SB 1.9.21-22)

And Bhagavān Kṛṣṇa Himself says:

I am equally disposed to all living beings, and so there is no one whom I despise or favor. But those who worship Me with devotion are situated in Me, and I too am established in them. (Gītā 9.29)

In this way, the Bhagavān is free from these blemishes, and it has been shown that favoring His devotees is an act of the essence of the intrinsic potency. So Bhagavān personally performs all those līlās in various avatāras only through His intrinsic potency and only to give delight to His devotees, whereas the maintenance of the universe is thereby accomplished of its own accord. This being established, Vidura’s question [as to how Bhagavān can become involved with the guṇas and activities of prakṛti, even as a matter of divine play (līlā), SB 3.7.2] does not stand.

In this regard, the flaw of the Bhagavān not being self-satisfied because He performs līlā with the devas, who are material beings, will be cleared later on [in Śrī Kṛṣṇa Sandarbha, Anuccheda 43] by accepting that the Lord partially enters the devas with His potency.

[An objection is raised] It is not to be conjectured that since the Lord gives bliss to His devotees and they to Him, He [or His devotees] must not be self-satisfied; nor that since He gives pleasure to His devotees while neglecting others, He must be subject to another form of bias.

The answer to the first objection is that although the sages have bodies endowed with the power of pure sattva and have thus attained the very heights of self-satisfaction, when we see the Lord’s affection towards these devotees it can be understood that this quality is a consequence of His self-satisfaction and not opposed to it.

As Śrī Parīkṣit said to all the sages:

You have no purpose to fulfill in this world or the next other than bestowing mercy upon others, for that is your innate disposition. (SB 1.19.23)

Similarly, in the story of Jaḍa Bharata:

The highly realized Jaḍa Bharata explained the true nature of the self out of supreme compassion to the ruler of Sindhu, even though he had been offended by him. (SB 5.13.24)

And also in Nārada’s previous life:

The sages, though equal to all, showed special mercy to me, who was engaged in their service and spoke but little. (SB 1.5.24)

And also in the prayers of Kuntī:

I bow down to You who are the only wealth of those who possess nothing else (akiñcanāḥ), who are free from the functions of the three guṇas, who delight in Your own Self, who are peaceful and the Lord of liberation. (SB 1.8.27)

Śrīdhara Svāmī comments: “The compound akiñcana-vitta means ‘You who are the all-in-all for those who have no possessions, namely the devotees.’”

Should He not do so, the flawless Lord would incur the defect of ungratefulness.

Commentary

One may raise an objection to the above conclusion that the Lord acts solely for the pleasure of His devotees and claim that this would indicate that they are not self-satisfied. Moreover, because His devotees also give Him pleasure, it would mean that He Himself is not self-satisfied. What is more, He must be biased because He acts only for the devotees’ benefit and not for others.

Śrī Jīva replies that the Lord’s devotees are fully satisfied, having completely transcendental bodies. The Lord has love for His devotees as His devotees have love for Him. This mutual love, which manifests as a desire to please the object of love, is not a sign of personal dissatisfaction, but is actually an outcome of the quality of self-satisfaction or love. Only a person who is satisfied within himself can love and serve another without any motive. One who is lacking self-satisfaction will seek personal fulfilment through his actions. Thus, the quality of self-satisfaction and service to the object of love go hand-in-hand.

In fact, if the Lord did not act to please His devotees, if He were not inspired by their love for Him, it would be a greater defect as it would show ingratitude to those who have dedicated everything for His sake. This answers the first objection raised by Śrī Jīva.

(93.4)

Bhakti Exists Both in the Bhakta as well as in Bhagavān

Translation:

It being proven that Bhagavān, though self-satisfied, is affectionate to His devotees, it naturally follows that He feels delighted by the removal of His devotees’ pains or by their attainment of happiness. Moreover, the energetic aspect called hlādinī (the potency of bliss) is the essence of the intrinsic potency (svarūpa-śakti), even though the latter is the ultimate essence [of all the potencies of Bhagavān]. And the essence even of that hlādinī aspect is a very special energy called bhakti. This bhakti, also called rati, ever resides in both the Lord and the devotees, spreading her functions on both sides. Thus it is said, “Bhagavān who has devotion for His devotees” (bhagavān bhakta-bhaktimān, 10.86.59).

Consequently, Bhagavān’s satisfaction stemming from the devotion existing in the devotee is in no way incompatible with His quality of being self-satisfied. Rather, bhakti, being one of Bhagavān’s potencies, is both different and non-different from the svarūpa of the Lord, according to the principle, “As they surrender unto Me, so do I also serve them” (ye yathā māṁ prapadyante tāṁs tathaiva bhajāmy aham, Gītā 4.11). Because bhakti appears as if it were a separate energy due to manifesting in the heart of a devotee, the Lord experiences extreme unprecedented bliss in the form of, “His devotion is giving Me delight.”

Even in the doctrine of those who consider the potency and the Potent to be different, the essential nature of Bhagavān is understood to be qualified with potency.

Intending all this, Lord Viṣṇu stated the following to sage Durvāsa:

1. O Brāhmaṇa, My heart is possessed by My saintly devotees. I am under the control of such devotees as if I have no independence. I am beloved to them.

2. I have no desire to enjoy My transcendental bliss or My supreme opulences without My saintly devotees for whom I am the only goal in life, O Brāhmaṇa.

3. How could I dare abandon those who have taken refuge in Me after renouncing all attachments to wife, house, children, relations, life, wealth, and even their own ultimate welfare in this world and the next?

4. The saintly devotees whose hearts are bound to Me and who view everyone equally, control Me by their devotion, just as a chaste wife controls her virtuous husband.

5. Fully satisfied by their service to Me, the devotees do not desire even the four types of liberation attained through such service. How then can they covet any other thing that will only be lost with the passage of time?

6. The saintly devotees are My very heart, while I am the very heart of the saints. They know nothing more lovable than Me, and I know nothing at all other than them. (SB 9.4.63-68)

In this series of six verses, verses 3-5 deny that the Lord is ungrateful; verse 6 negates the opinion that the Lord lacks self-satisfaction, and verses 1-2 show that bhakti is the essence of hlādinī, which is in turn the essence of the svarūpa-śakti. The state of the devotees, when this potency enters into them in the form of bhakti, is described in verse 5. Therefore, Bhagavān does not have the first flaw, that of not being satisfied in His own Self.

Commentary

Śrī Jīva Gosvāmī does not deny that Bhagavān derives bliss by favoring His devotees. Still, this is not incompatible with His nature of being self-satisfied. The reason for this is that it is Bhagavān who bestows His own bhakti on His would-be devotees. Bhakti is the very essence of Bhagavān’s intrinsic energy. Bhagavān grants this energy to His would-be devotee and that devotee is then guided by it. Thus, the reciprocation between Bhagavān and the devotee is impelled by that intrinsic energy called bhakti or love, which belongs to Bhagavān.

The intrinsic energy is non-different from Bhagavān, and thus the Lord derives pleasure from His own energy, not from something external to His svarūpa. This does not make Him subject to any lack of self-satisfaction, which would be a defect. Bhagavān is devoted to His devotee, just as His devotee is devoted to Him. Both of them are self-satisfied, yet continuously yearn to serve each other, being impelled by love. This indeed is the nature of love, which will be discussed in much greater detail in Prīti-sandarbha.

Although Bhagavān is complete in Himself, He yet derives unprecedented bliss by serving His devotee. He becomes completely controlled by the love of the devotee. In fact, this love can even make Him forget that He is Bhagavān and cause Him to experience extreme delight in being controlled by the bhakta. This behavior of the Lord is beyond the ordinary conception of God as creator and controller of the universe, i.e., one who rewards piety and metes out punishment for wrongdoing.

The verses cited here were spoken by Śrī Viṣṇu when approached by the sage Durvāsā for protection from the Sudarśana-cakra. Durvāsā had offended the great devotee, King Ambarīṣa. In anger at a perceived slight, he had wanted to kill the king by creating a murderous phantom. Bhagavān’s disc Sudarśana immediately came to the rescue of the innocent king, burned Durvāsā’s apparition to cinders and then began chasing Durvāsā, who had to run for his life. The sage went to great personalities like Śiva and Brahmā for help, but they were powerless against the Supreme Lord’s discus. Finally, Durvāsā was obliged to take shelter of Śrī Viṣṇu, the wielder of the disc. With these verses, Bhagavān explained how He feels an obligation to protect His devotees.

Śrī Viṣṇu says that He is dependent on His devotees because they have captured His heart by their love. Love is the most powerful charm that can bring even the Supreme Person under control. In Krama Sandarbha, Śrī Jīva Gosvāmī writes that the bliss of Bhagavān is of two types–Svarūpānanda and Svarūpa-śaktyānanda. Out of these, the second is superior to the first. The second is further of two types, called Mānasānanda and Aiśvaryānanada. The first one is related to His devotees. With these verses Bhagavan implies that the bliss of His loving exchange with His devotees is superior to Svarūpānanada as well as Aiśvaryānanada. He says that without His devotees, He does not want His own Self or His opulence. In the following verse He gives the reason for this – these devotees have sacrificed everything for Bhagavān. Bhagavān is not an ungrateful person, therefore He cannot afford to forget His devotees. The implication of all this is that Bhagavān acts only for the sake of His devotees. Even the acts of creation and so on are done for devotees.

At present I am working on Paramātmā Sandarbha, the third book of Jīva Gosvāmī’s Ṣaṭ Sandarbhas. I thought of sharing the 93rd Anuccheda of the book, which is an elaborate analysis of the nature of Bhagavān and His relation with the world and His devotees. It also deals with the question why there is so much suffering in the world if there is a God who is merciful. I think it will be interesting for our readers and give a peek into Paramātmā Sandarbha. It is a long anuccheda. So for easy understanding, I have divided it in six parts, as I did with the lengthy anucchedas in Bhagavat Sandarbha.What follows is the translation of the original text and my commentary on it.

(93.1)

Objections to the Agency of Bhagavān

Translation:

Sri Varadaraja in Kanchipuram

Although the conclusion regarding the Lord’s threefold cosmic play (līlā) of creation and so on has been undertaken in a general way, it is now elaborated again in a specific manner, by addressing various objections, according to the principle of “driving in the post” (sthūṇa-nikhanana-nyāya).

A question is raised: Does the Supreme Lord Himself personally appear or not as the avatāras who descend in the course of His cosmic play of sustaining the universe, and does He or does He not perform the various līlās of these avatāras about which we hear, such as siding with the gods (suras) by exhibiting a smile expressive of His pleasure or by granting them fearlessness, or by killing the asuras by doing battle with them?

If He does, then not only would the objection raised earlier [in Anuccheda 85] become verified [that He is influenced by the guṇas], but He would also be subject to [the flaw of] favoritism [towards the devas]. If He does not, then all these avatāras and their līlāsare shown to not be part of the Lord’s essential nature and thus the previously accepted conclusion falls to pieces.

Commentary

While fixing a pole in the ground or a peg in a wall, the more the pole or peg is hit by a hammer, the more firm it becomes, and then it will not shake. This is called sthūṇa-nikhanana-nyāya, or the principle of driving in a post. The more objections one can raise against a theory and then answer, the more firmly that theory is established and indeed becomes unshakable.

Śrī Jīva has already substantiated that Bhagavān is the agent behind the creation, sustenance and destruction of the universe, and yet is neither influenced by the guṇas nor undergoes any modification. He now raises further doubts to this position to make it absolutely clear. One of the reasons he does so is to uproot any traces of non-theistic leanings from our minds. The non-theists (i.e., the radical nondualists) admit the existence of a conditioned God, but in their view this God is also a product of māyā and not a transcendental person. Therefore, He cannot be the ultimate object of devotion. The author wants to completely rid us of this misconception.

If Bhagavān is the agent of such activities as protecting the devas and killing the asuras, then He must be influenced by the material guṇas,otherwise how could He behave in this manner? Moreover, if such were the case, He would not be equal to all, but biased against the wicked and favoring the saintly. Surely such behavior is not possible for one who is beyond the jurisdiction of material nature.

On the other hand, if it is said that these activities are not performed by Him directly, then it would contradict the principle that His actions and attributes are part of His inherent nature . This is the doubt that is being raised.

(93.2)

Bhagavān Acts Only for the Delight of his Devotees

Translation:

The answer is as follows: It is true, Parameśvara does nothing at all to sustain the universe. But He manifests various avatāras and līlās exclusively through the display of His intrinsic potency to give pleasure to the Vaikuṇṭha associates who descend with Him, as well as to the devotees among the devas engaged in universal administration, and to other devotees not directly involved [in these pastimes]. This is stated in Padma-purāṇa:

Although I am able to annihilate the asuras in a mere moment (muhūrta), I still perform various activities for the pleasure of My devotees. A fish, a tortoise and a bird nourish their offspring by seeing, reflection, and touching respectively. So also do I [nourish My devotees], O Brahmā.

In the Hari-bhakti-sudhodaya, Śrī Nṛsiṁha says:

I am fully satisfied always, and I take various births to fulfill all the desires of My devotees. So please tell Me, what can I do to please you? (HBS 14.31)

And there is also Kuntī Devī’s statement:

You have appeared to grant bhakti-yoga to the pure-hearted paramahaṁsa sages. So how can we women see you? (SB 1.8.20)

In this verse, the phrase “to grant bhakti-yoga” (bhakti-yoga-vidhānārtham) means that the dissemination of bhakti is the purpose of His appearance. This is also the opinion of Śrīdhara Svāmī in his commentary on this verse. There is also the following statement of Śrī Brahmā:

In order to expand the totality of bliss of those who are surrendered to You, O Lord, You imitate the ways of the world on earth, though You are beyond all connection with the world. (SB 10.14.37)

[That the manifestation of līlā and avatāra is] a display of the intrinsic potency is shown by Śrī Brahmā himself:

So that I may remain untainted by my work, even as I create this universe, which is a display of His creative power, may the Lord, who fulfills the wishes of those who take refuge in Him, engage my mind in the divine play He performs, manifesting many transcendental virtues when He descends (gṛhīta-guṇāvatāra) along with His intrinsic potency, Ramā. (SB 3.9.23)

In this verse, the compound gṛhīta-guṇāvatāra means, the avatāra of the Lord in which He takes on qualities such as mercy. In this way, while manifesting these avatāras exclusively for the pleasure of His devotees, the work of His extrinsic potency māyā in the form of protecting the universe by such things as siding with the suras occurs of its own accord, even without His conscious inspection.

Just as in the world, when devotees assemble together to heighten their exultation of love for the Lord, they may gather some drum players who are unacquainted with the ecstasy of such divine love, and while dancing, being intoxicated by singing the glories of the Lord, they destroy the inauspiciousness of the world and at the same time increase its auspiciousness. This is expressed in the Eleventh Canto, “A person endowed with devotion to Me purifies the entire world” (SB 11.14.24). It is similarly said in the following verse:

Lord Hari’s creation of the world is verily without anticipation of any particular result. He does so out of His bliss alone, just like the dancing of an intoxicated person.

Commentary

Śrī Jīva accepts the second of the two options raised in the previous section, that although Bhagavān personally appears as the avatāras who descend in the course of His cosmic play, He does not act for the sake of maintaining the universe. This He could do even without descending upon the earth. Merely by His will He could destroy the miscreants by sending them some natural calamities, and in that way accomplish this purpose. But Bhagavān acts for the delight of His devotees. It is for this reason that He creates the universe, accepts avatāras, and performs pastimes. This is why His activities are called līlā or divine play.

Sri Rangam Temple

The maintenance of the universe is a concomitant effect of His dalliance with His devotees, just as when one cooks food on a wood fire for one’s pleasure, one may also alleviate the distress caused by the cold. In the course of His līlā, Bhagavān may kill the wicked when they cause a disturbance to His devotees. As a side effect, people in general are benefited, even though Bhagavān acted only for the devotees’ welfare.

Śrī Jīva gives a contemporary example of devotees who gather and perform saṅkīrtana for the pleasure of the Lord. Although they do so for His delight, it brings auspiciousness to the whole world because of the power of devotion (SB 11.14.24). They may also engage some non-devotees to accompany them in playing musical instruments. These musicians also receive divine blessings, even though that was not their primary intention. A person can perform an action to achieve something he lacks, or just out of inner delight. We belong to the first category and have no experience of the second state. Bhagavān acts out of bliss like an intoxicated person who dances out of sheer joy, and not to get joy.

(to be continued)

]]>http://www.jiva.org/bhagavan-grace-and-material-suffering-part-1/feed/1The Mechanics of Darshanahttp://www.jiva.org/darshana/
http://www.jiva.org/darshana/#commentsTue, 16 Dec 2014 10:46:01 +0000malatihttp://www.satyanarayanadas.com/?p=7570Question: I have a question about the mechanics of darsana - through what mechanisms
or instruments does the qualified bhakta actually perceive Krishna (since the atman has no inherent senses)?

Krishna and Arjuna on the battlefield

In the Gita, Krishna has to give Arjuna divya caksus. Granted this is to see the virat rupa, as otherwise Arjuna is able to see Krishna’s two armed form without divya caksuh, but this seems to be one way in which darsana can transpire – something like the Brahman body that the liberated soul is bestowed in Vaikuntha or Goloka – the attainment of a new body with senses with which to see and serve Isvara. So it seems possible the accomplished devotee in this world could likewise be given some sort of Brahman sensory instruments in a parallel manner. But this does not seem to be the whole story since, as noted, Arjuna doesn’t need any special instrumentation to see Krishna’s regular form, nor does anyone else in Kurukshetra and elsewhere.

So another option is Krishna makes himself visible to the regular prakritic senses – the jnana indriyas made from the gunas. If this is so, how does this transpire, since we know from the Upanisads onwards, that ‘thought does not reach there’, ‘it cannot be seen’ etc. If Krishna’s body is citi-sakti, it cannot be perceived by prakriti tattvas or indriyas. And since Brahman is eternal, it can never be changed, viz, transformed into prakriti- cetana cannot become acetana. So, other than saying this is Krishna’s acintya shakti, is there any way to make sense of this with the rational mind, given that Jiva strives so hard to be rational in the Sandarbhas?

In the case of Dhruva, Vishnu appeared inside and then outside. If he appeared inside, then Dhruva did not perceive him with his senses. In this case, he must have appeared to him in the mind. Does this mean that Vishnu manifests as a samskara? The same problem occurs here – the mind can only conceive of things made of samskaras, which are ultimately imprints from mahabhauta sense impressions – visaya. One could perhaps say that, just as Isvara can permeate murti or mantra made from mahabhauta, he can also permeate samskara by exactly the same methods.

And, finally, when he disappeared and Dhruva opened his eyes, Vishnu appeared outside, which goes back to the same question above – if he was using the regular senses and not divyacaksus, how could Krishna’s form of pure consciousness be perceived by bhautika senses?

Does Jiva or anyone discuss such things – the mechanics of darsana? Hopefully this is not one of those ‘acintya‘ responses. Thanks for any thoughts, here.

Answer: Darsana is possible in this very body with theses senses by the power of the intrinsic potency, antaranga-sakti of Bhagavan. When the senses get imbued with the antaranga-sakti, they can see the Lord. Just as the material senses can perceive material objects, they can perceive a spiritual object when empowered by the intrinsic or spiritual potency. You may know the famous verse from Bhakti-rasamrita-sindhu:

“The Name and so on of Sri Krishna cannot be perceived by the material senses. However, when one becomes inclined to serve Krishna, then the Name manifests on one’s tongue [and similarly, form becomes visible to the eyes ].” (BRS 1.2.234)

So just as the pure Name can manifest on this very tongue, the form of the Lord can manifest in these very eyes or in the mind. The Brahma samhita verse 5.38 also says the same thing:

premanjana-churita-bhakti-vilocanenasantah sadaiva hrdayesu vilokayanti “ The devotes ever see the form of Bhagavan in their heart with the eyes smeared with the salve of love”

When it is said that the mind and senses cannot reach Him, that is for ordinary people, because paranci khani vyatrnat svayambhu parann pasyti na antar atman, “Brahma designed the sense to go outwards, therefore ordinary people only see external sense objects, not the inner self” (Kathopanisad 2.1.1) but later the same Upanisad mantra says, kascid dhirah prayag atmanam aiksadavrta caksur amrtatvam icchan. “A person of controlled mind sees the inner self with open eyes while desiring nectar (or immortality).”

So there are many statements in the Upanisads, Puranas, and in Gita also which explain that one can have darsana with these senses when the senses get purified. When one is on the level of bhava, then this antaranga-sakti enters into atma; that is why it is called sthayi-bhava. Then, when prema manifests, the senses get the ability to perceive Krishna.

Question: In the discussion surrounding Bhakti Sandarbha, Annucheda 153, pg 455 it says that “If a person disrespects a Vaisnava, then Lord Visnu is not pleased with him even if he worships the Lord for hundreds of lifetimes”. My first question is what constitutes disrespect?

Answer: Anything which will displease one. It could be some words, physical action, like looking in a demeaning way or laughing sarcastically. Actually the answer you can know yourself – what would you consider disrespect to yourself may also be disrespectful to others. Some things may be specific to a particular culture, like in India calling a senior person by the name is disrespectful.

Question: If I think about how I should respect my guru, the answer is very clear to me. But I’m not certain as to how to apply this verse in my life in my interactions with people who are Vaisnavas but who I don’t necessarily have a relationship with. Is simply greeting and acknowledging someone a sign of respect?

Answer: Yes, in such cases greeting is a sign of respect.

Question: Or is something more required?

Answer: It will vary from person to person. But at least do not act disrespectfully knowingly. Do not have the mood of disrespect within.

Question: Secondly, in the West there is a belief that respect should be earned, while in the East, we respect our parents (and their authority) without them having to “earn it” first. I think that all life should be respected, but human beings are tricky creatures. Their egos get in the way of almost everything that they do – so how does one respect the Vaisnava truly, without flattering a false ego?

Answer: That is why I said respect/disrespect is also cultural thing. So in Vaisnavism we do not follow this concept that respect has to be earned. We respect all, but the manner of respect will vary. Sometimes just looking with a smile may be respect, say towards children.

Answer: SrimadBhagavatam is a kavya. Kavya is of three types – poetry, prose and a mixture of both. SB has used the third style. Interestingly, in Sanskrit writing kavya in prose is considered as more difficult than writing in poetry.

*

Creation

Question: SB 11.9.28 speaks about Bhagavan creating the human species because he was not satisfied with his previous creation. Does this occur at the beginning of each creation and where are all the jivas who had human bodies before at that time?

Answer: When there is total annihilation, all the jivas go into the body of Mahavishnu, whether they had human or subhuman bodies. Then, at the beginning of a new creation, He ejects the jivas into prakriti or material nature, as Krsna says in BG 14.3. and 14.4. And then later on, various species of life are created by Brahma and prajapatis such as Daksa.

So not all the jivas come out simultaneously. Just as there are many seeds in the ground, they do not all sprout simultaneously. Different jivas have different karmas, and when it is possible for their karma to manifest, they are giving the corresponding bodies.

The intention of Śrī Vyāsa is not to give us historical information, but to impart transcendental knowledge. Still there may be historical facts articulated to convey the intended meaning. Śrī Śukadeva Gosvāmī makes this clear in the verse:

kathā imās te kathitā mahīyasāṁ
vitāya lokeṣu yaśaḥ pareyuṣām
vijñāna-vairāgya-vivakṣayā vibhovaco-vibhūtīr na tu pāramārthyam“O King, I have narrated to you these stories of glorious kings, who achieved great fame in this world and then met their demise, in order to impart to you knowledge of the insubstantiality of sense enjoyment, and thereby to evoke in you a spirit of detachment from the same. These stories are merely a display of eloquence and have no bearing on the Absolute Truth.” (SB 12.3.14)

The last sentence in the verse says that “the stories are merely a display of eloquence,” vaco-vibhūtī, which implies that not everything is to be taken literally. Sometimes facts are exaggerated to make the description appear very attractive, extraordinary, and wonderful.

King Citraketu and his Wives

A Vidyadhara couple

For example, the fourteenth chapter of the Sixth Canto of Śrīmad Bhāgavatam, describes the story of Citraketu, the great king King of the Vidyādharas who was without a son. In the varṇāśrama system, it was obligatory for a married person to have a son so that he could continue the lineage, which was necessary for the performance of the śraddhā ceremony. Therefore, in a bid to have a son, Citraketu married ten million wives, one after another, as stated in the verse:

“He married, had ten million wives, one after another, yet O King, he could not beget any progeny in them.” (SB 6.14.11)

The text says that the king had ten million [sahasrāṇāṁ sahasrāṇi daśa, lit., ten thousand thousand] wives, which were all barren and therefore didn’t give him a child. If this figure were literal, it would take him 27,397 years if he married a wife a day. Given such an impossibility, we must understand this to be a poetic description. It is called atiśayokti- alaṅkāra, hyperbole or an expression involving exaggeration. Sahitya-darpaṇa, which was referred to above, gives definitions of various alaṅkāras, including atiśayokti, which are divided into five types (10.46).

The famous poet Daṇḍin gives the following example of atiśayokti:

“Wearing garlands of white jasmine and cloths of linen, their limbs moist with sandal paste, the trysting ladies are hidden in the moonlight.” (Agni Purāṇa, 3.44.26)

Here the whiteness of the girls’ dresses is exaggerated to the point of making them invisible in the moonlight. Similarly, the intention of the statement about Citraketu’s ten million wives is to show the intensity of the king’s desire to have a son. As stated above, the purpose of the story is to instill renunciation in the mind of the reader. The human mind is full of desires, and, according to Vedic scripture, there are three chief desires: desire for pleasure, desire for a good future life, and desire to have good progeny. None of them can be completely satisfied, as we see in the present story where the king is unable to fulfill his desire for good progeny.

Sage Aṅgirā blessed King Citraketu that he would be able to beget a son whose name will be harṣa- śoka prada (lit., the giver of pleasure and grief). The king was overjoyed when his son was finally begotten, but his joy plunged into grief when the co-wives of the child’s mother poisoned the son out of envy. Thus he remained dissatisfied.

Lessons from the Suggested Meaning

The suggested meaning this story is that if he was not able to fulfill his desires with ten million wives and thus remained dissatisfied, how can an ordinary person be satisfied in material life, who has only one wife? Citraketu was a king and despite having millions of wives, he was frustrated even after his desire was fulfilled. Therefore, how can an ordinary person, who has only one wife and many desires, be satisfied?

The wife in this tale signifies the means to satisfy desire. Therefore it is understood that this statement was made to instill detachment in the listeners and readers of the Bhāgavatam, as explained above by Śukadeva Gosvāmī (SB 12.3.14).

Taking the expression “ten million wives” as alaṅkāra, however, doesn’t mean that there are no real wives – for the king obviously had many wives. The number of ten million wives can also denote mental states (vṛttis). There are similar instances where the Bhāgavatam compares the mind and its movements, the vṛttis, to wives, as in SB 4.29.5. In this chapter, Nārada speaks to King Prācīnabarhi, telling him the allegorical story about King Purañjana who is completely infatuated with his queen Purañjanī. Purañjanī can be understood as the intelligence of King Purañjana, but is, at the same time, his wife in the literal sense. That there are millions of vṛttis is stated by Jaḍa Bharata in his instructions to Rahūgaṇa. He says that there are eleven original vṛttis which transform into thousands and then millions of vṛttis (SB 5.11.11). The name Citraketu itself suggests a mind full of various desires (citra). Thus the conclusion of the Citraketu story is that one cannot become materially satisfied trying to fulfill one’s unlimited desires; satisfaction or fulfillment can be experienced only if these vṛttis are surrendered to God or used in His service. This is exactly what Citraketu did later on.

Thus not every detail in the Bhāgavatam is meant to be taken literally, and we must carefully use intelligence to discern direct from implied and associated meanings.